Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Rush Limbaugh LIVE Radio Show Thread - Friday, March 27, 2009
The EIB Network ^ | 03/27/09 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 03/27/2009 8:30:44 AM PDT by IMissPresidentReagan

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-226 last
To: WorkerbeeCitizen

Genny is probably smarter than you think. If she won’t leave you alone when your FReepin, it’s because all cats KNOW what takes your attention away from them.

221 posted on 03/27/2009 11:59:29 AM PDT by Fudd Fan (Stop the lying marxist Chicago-thug Kenyan teleprompTer-savant NOW before our Republic is gone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Fudd Fan

It’s mostly that she still bites me a lot and gets on the counters - I don’t want her doing that and the spray bottle is only temporary.

222 posted on 03/27/2009 12:03:54 PM PDT by WorkerbeeCitizen (The only time I want a Republican reaching across the aisle is to smack a liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

RE: Rush’s comments today:

Rich Lowry Posted: 3:50 am August 19, 2008

Barack Obama had a mini Bob Dole moment after the Saddleback presidential forum the other night. Asked on the Christian Broadcasting Network about a controversy over his opposition to legislation in Illinois protecting infants born alive after surviving abortions, an irked Obama replied, “I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”

Obama’s line recalled Dole’s plaint on national TV after the first George Bush beat him in New Hampshire in 1988, “Tell him to stop lying about my record.” Dole’s outburst would live in infamy as evidence of his distemper. Obama’s problem isn’t his temperament, but the unsustainable exertions necessary to attempt to square his reasonable-sounding rhetoric on abortion with the extremism of his record.

Asked by Pastor Rick Warren when a baby gets rights, Obama said, “I’m absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue.” This is a crashing banality couched as thoughtfulness. If Obama is so sensitive to the moral element of the issue, why does he want to eliminate any existing restrictions on the procedure?

In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion.

At Saddleback, Obama said determining when a baby gets rights is “above his pay grade.” Leave aside that presidents usually have an opinion about who deserves legal rights. If Obama is willing to permit any abortions in any circumstances, he’d better possess an absolute certainty about the absolute moral nullity of the fetus.

He told Warren that he favors “limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health.” But the exception he wants is so broad it makes the restriction meaningless. Obama opposed the partial-birth bill that passed the House and the Senate, 281-142 and 64-34, respectively, and has criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law.

It’s not just partial-birth abortion where Obama is outside the mainstream, but on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act - the occasion for his televised accusation of lying. In 2000, Congress took up legislation to make it clear that infants born alive after abortions are persons under the law. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League opposed the bill as an assault on Roe, but it passed the House 380-15.

Back in the Illinois state Senate in 2001, Obama spoke out against and voted “present” - effectively “no” - on a similar bill, aligning himself with the tiny pro-abortion rump of 15 congressmen.

In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a “neutrality clause” specifying that it didn’t affect Roe one way or another. The bill passed without any dissenting votes in the House or the Senate and was signed into law.

In 2003 in Illinois, Obama still opposed a state version of the law. He long claimed that he voted against it because it didn’t have the same “neutrality clause” as the federal version. But the National Right to Life Committee has unearthed documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted to kill it anyway.

Confronted about this on CBN, he said the pro-life group was lying.

But his campaign has now admitted that he had the legislative history wrong. Obama either didn’t know his own record, or was so accustomed to shrouding it in dishonesty that it had become second nature.

Here’s a central dilemma of Obama’s candidacy. Nothing in his career supports his contention that he’s a postpartisan healer. So, as someone as splenetic as Dole might put it, he’s forced to lie about his record.


223 posted on 03/27/2009 12:56:53 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (The brush fire's lit - the revolution has begun! Lead, follow, or get the hell outta the way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

He’s a walking contradiction with consequences.

224 posted on 03/27/2009 2:10:25 PM PDT by 99Floyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Roccus

I stole that one, myself...

225 posted on 03/27/2009 2:51:27 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 67 of our national holiday from reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: IMissPresidentReagan
What Rush is talking about....

New York budget to increase spending by 9 percent

226 posted on 03/30/2009 9:47:08 AM PDT by MaestroLC ("Let him who wants peace prepare for war."--Vegetius, A.D. Fourth Century)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-226 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson